Why did God create Choice?

[Adolescent09]

If it was God's intention to create us to be eternally pure and obedient, why did he give us the choice to refute his laws, moreover His very existence? God must have preconceived that the benefit of choice to mankind superceded the setbacks. But where man is given a choice, God must have known that commandments are futile in sustaining obedience. One doesn't need omniscience to know that. Unless you're a monk or high member of the laity, chances are you've broken God's law at least once in your lifetime. Why then would he create a world of choice and leave destiny in the hands of a volatile race, when a world of systematic followers guided by an absolute fate and destiny would have been far simpler to preside over?

[AdoreroDio]

First of all, even the higher up people such as a monk have broken God's law, the Bible says "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Secondly, to answer the question-
God created choice and gave men choice because He did not create man to be His slaves, His play things, or just to watch, He created them not only to be obedient but also to love Him. And what is love if you are created to love with no choice? He wanted us to choose Him not have Him choose Him for us. Being pure for God means nothing to God unless it was our own choice- without choice we would be robots. And destiny isn't in our hands- just because we choose something doesn't mean God's plans for our future are changed- he still holds the future in His hands, the only thing He can't do is MAKE us love Him- that is our choice.....I don't know if I'm making any sense but what I'm saying basically is that God gave us choice because he wanted true love and devotion.

[Adolescent09]

the only thing He can't do is MAKE us love Him

God can create the Universe. He can create the stars. He can create the billions of trillions of planets that make up the Universe. He can make thought. He can give thought to human mortal in the form of a brain. Up until this point he seems to have control over everything. But he CAN'T make us love him? He doesn't have control in this department? CAN't is a weakness. I guess God isn't so perfect.

Keep in mind I'm a Protestant Christian... but it just seems odd to me that God presides over and controls everything in the universe but he can't control something as banal and insignificant (in comparison to everything else he made) as human choice.

You say that he wanted us to chose to adopt faith in Him; that we aren't his "puppets". But since the root of evil IS choice, he must have known that by making choice, evil would be the inevitable consequence. And since choice is determined almost solely by life's experiences (since we're all born good) why didn't he bless all mortal individuals with ideal experiences to make sure that they had faith in Him?

[mayneverhave]

To burden mankind

"for nothing has ever been more insufferable for man and for human society than freedom!"
- The Brothers Karamazov

Personally though, I'm more of the atheistic/existential persuasion, so I really don't believe that - I just thought it was interesting.

[jon1jt]

If it was God's intention to create us to be eternally pure and obedient, why did he give us the choice to refute his laws, moreover His very existence? God must have preconceived that the benefit of choice to mankind superceded the setbacks. But where man is given a choice, God must have known that commandments are futile in sustaining obedience. One doesn't need omniscience to know that. Unless you're a monk or high member of the laity, chances are you've broken God's law at least once in your lifetime. Why then would he create a world of choice and leave destiny in the hands of a volatile race, when a world of systematic followers guided by an absolute fate and destiny would have been far simpler to preside over?

Right on. You see, religions take over from this point, they create the narrative as explanation. Self-righteousness finishes the job.

[Pendragon]

He could have made man serve him.
He wanted man to desire to serve Him.
God the source of all love, wanted to be loved for who He was and what He had done--rescued man from death.
But first, man would have to do something worthy of death.
So God gave him free choice.
Instead of controlling him like a robot, steering him away from wrong.
And man chose knowledge and it lead to evil and death.

My two cents.

[AdoreroDio]

You put it perfectly Pendragon, exactly what I wanted to say but couldn't, I wish I could express my thoughts as well as you do.

[Wyoecho]

What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice? Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control? How many suicides are a result of failed relationships? How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?
God may give mankind the illusion of choice but in reality we are a product of our thoughts and emotions. No more no less.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

Dear Members,

I think God created choice,to ensure that we grow because of the opportunities given to us because of 'choices'being given.To quote a day to day example,let me speak about human habits.The word 'sorry' evolved possibly because of choices.One can just hurt someone phisically and emotionally without intention.But as we grow or rather we become more 'aware',we begin to feel we need not have hurt another being.So comes the habit of saying 'sorry'.One can give real meaning to this habit only if one really feels the "sorry'.

So here we are with God given choices.Choices means growth of divinity,more and more.

Sincerely,

v.Jayalakshmi.:)

[brightfame]

What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice? Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control? How many suicides are a result of failed relationships? How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?
God may give mankind the illusion of choice but in reality we are a product of our thoughts and emotions. No more no less.


"...worship only him or face eternal darkness."

The eternal darkness was only intended for the Devil and his fallen angels, AND everything that causes sin. I don't think it was ever intended for humans. The only one going to eternal darkness is the person who totally insists on clinging to their sin no matter what (an extreme exercise of free will). Since God has provided a way (...free of charge) to be washed totally clean from sin, facing "eternal darkness" is unnecessary to the extreme. Therefore, to state "...worship only him or face eternal darkness" is in my opinion incorrect and misses the point of the 'free gift of salvation' and 'salvation by grace'.


"...tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control..."

'Uncontrolled' thoughts and emotions, whether they are chemical, organic or demonic, are never from God; and mental illness is not sin. However, God does promise to give His followers "...peace that surpasses all understanding". Nothing in the humanist world promises this, nor has the power to deliver it (eg. money, fame, power, occult?! etc.).


"...suicides are a result of failed relationships..." and "...violence are a result of uncontrolled rage..."

In my experience, I find that there is an inverse relationship in people's lives between clinging to Him by faith and experiencing the abovementioned events; or, in my experience, there is a direct relationship in people's lives between the consequences of a self willed life (i.e. unwise exercise of free will) and the abovementioned events. Either way, in my opinion, better to cling to Him (i.e. submit free will to His).


To put it in very simple terms:
There are physical laws, and there are spiritual laws; God created them both.
We have no problems accepting the physical laws, mainly because we can see their effects (e.g. law of gravity). Spiritual laws are not as obvious.
Now;
No one who deliberately walks off a cliff (i.e. ignores a physical law by free will) blames God for the consequences. We all roughly know the physical laws pertaining to walking off a cliff, so there are no excuses. Just as there are physical laws so there are spiritual laws; and deliberately (i.e. exercise of free will) going against spiritual laws will also bring death and destruction. However, EVERYONE wants to blame God for this.


...please remember: "...free gift of salvation". Salvation is FREE. No need to stress about thoughts, emotions, free will, etc.

In the end, the only God-given "free will" decision that anyone has to make is:
Will I accept the FREE gift of salvation, or not.
This is the big decider.

brightfame

[Adolescent09]

What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice? Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control? How many suicides are a result of failed relationships? How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?
God may give mankind the illusion of choice but in reality we are a product of our thoughts and emotions. No more no less.

This is my sentiment exactly. Choice is as deceptive as its consequence is dire. Birth begins the episodic existence of mankind. Since experience causes emotional caprice (mostly negative designs) and is the fabric of existence, only a divine sadist would be pleased to see his creations exist in the first place.

[Whifflingpin]

"The only one going to eternal darkness is the person who totally insists on clinging to their sin no matter what (an extreme exercise of free will). Since God has provided a way ... Since God has provided a way ... to be washed totally clean from sin,..."
That "way" requires worshipping God, and sin could simply be defined as refusing to worship God. So Wyoecho's question needs a different answer.

[brightfame]

"The only one going to eternal darkness is the person who totally insists on clinging to their sin no matter what (an extreme exercise of free will). Since God has provided a way ... Since God has provided a way ... to be washed totally clean from sin,..."
That "way" requires worshipping God, and sin could simply be defined as refusing to worship God. So Wyoecho's question needs a different answer.
Incorrect. If you read the Bible you will see that the emphasis is FAITH in God and not "worshipping God". Worship is only an acknowledgement of God for who He is. Even demons can acknowledge God for who He is, but they are not saved. Therefore, faith precedes worship (and is in my opinion a form of implied worship) because "...without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God, because first one must BELIEVE that God exists, and that He rewards those who seek after Him..." Other crucial scriptures about salvation also emphasise faith and not worship eg: "...you have been save by grace, through faith, not of works that anyone should boast...". Worship, in the way you and Wyoecho seem to define it, is some kind of performance (i.e. a work); it is therefore totally powerless to save you. In other words; I get the impression that you think that getting saved comes from somehow performing up to some standard of "worshipping God". However, this is a common misconception. You can't be saved by worshipping God, or not worshipping God. You can worship God until you are blue in the face, or you can completely refrain from worshipping God, and still it will make no difference to your salvation.

So...even though the the answer is valid to the question, you can argue that the question is based on an incorrect premise. "worshipping God" cannot save you, as much as helping an old person cross the street cannot save you, as much as giving money to the Salvation Army is totally powerless to save you. The only thing that CAN save you is faith in Jesus Christ.

And, no, "...that way..." doesn't require "worshiping God" in the context that you and Wyoecho seem to understand it (i.e. some kind of performance); the "way", and the only way, IS by FAITH in Jesus Christ (and not some spooky, esoteric, definition of smething called ..."the way"). Now, FAITH is not a work, or a performance, because the Bible says "...you are saved by grace, through FAITH, not by works...". Examples of works: "worshiping God" (by your definition), helping a granny across the street, etc.

In other words, just in case I didn't make myself clear above:
You can "worship God" or not, but without faith in Christ you can't be saved; or you can "worship God" or not, but if you have faith in Christ you are saved whether you worship or not (even though, as I already mentioned, I personally think that faith in Christ is a form of implied worship, for all it's worth).

Is that better?

brightfame

[Whifflingpin]

"You can "worship God" or not, but without faith in Christ you can't be saved; or you can "worship God" or not, but if you have faith in Christ you are saved whether you worship or not (even though, as I already mentioned, I personally think that faith in Christ is a form of implied worship, for all it's worth).

Is that better?"

'Fraid not, whether worship is an act, or simply acknowledging God for who she is, or implied as part of faith in Christ, Wyoecho's question still stands.

[jon1jt]

God created choice so we could all stand around wondering how we got here.

[dzebra]

What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice? Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control? How many suicides are a result of failed relationships? How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?
God may give mankind the illusion of choice but in reality we are a product of our thoughts and emotions. No more no less.

"What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice?"

Technically, God never called it "free choice," but the kind of god that would do that is the same kind of god that gives eternal salvation to anyone who loves him, the same kind of god that loves his creation so much that he sacrificed his son to give them a chance to have eternal life, the same kind of god that created everything that exists, the kind of god that has the power to do anything he wants, but the patience to let people live their lives the way they want.

"Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control?"

Sure, sometimes emotions hurt, but I don't believe that they can completely control a person's actions unless the person allows his or her emotions that kind of power. While you can't always control how you feel, you can always control what you do.

"How many suicides are a result of failed relationships?"

I have no idea.

"How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?"

I have no idea, but I am willing to bet that the acts of violence were not mandatory for the person with the rage. The person had the rage, then volunteered to be violent. That's not a fault of God for giving them emotions, that's a fault of the person for not being able to control his actions.

[hellsapoppin]

Choice?

As I asked before on another thread, what choice does an abortion victim have?

[dzebra]

Only a little less than any murder victim.

[ex ponto]

but if you have faith in Christ you are saved whether you worship or not (even though, as I already mentioned, I personally think that faith in Christ is a form of implied worship, for all it's worth).

Is that better?

brightfame[/QUOTE]

"Not everyone who cries 'Lord' will be saved" and "Faith without acting is dead" That means you still have to try and love other people as you love your self. The way we live our lives will show whether we really have faith or not.

Sorry, I don't have the Bible in English translation.

[RichardHresko]

The questions being dealt with here are excellent. It seems that some of the difficulties are ones of definitions. Maybe we need to use our terms more clearly.

Obedience, for one, is an important idea. Obedience can be of at least two types -- slavish and loving. Slavish obedience is the obedience that is offered because the other party has power over you. the second type of obedience is that of love. I hope most of us have experienced that kind of loving obedience, which involves putting our interests second to that of the one we love: parents, lovers, friends. An approach to faith that involves worrying that if you break a rule you go to Hell is clearly based on the first definition. I believe this is the implication of 2 Corinthians 3:6, that those who look to score points have missed the point.

Secondly, we need to consider what exactly we mean by free will. Many people would argue that free will is the ability to decide what we desire. I do not think one would include obtaining it as part of free will. After all, my wanting a Porsche or whatever is my act of will, and it is no less my will if I can not afford it.

Now, if one believes that what people desire most is to be happy, one would at least consider it likely that a person wills for that which he believes will give him that happiness.

The problem for us comes in choosing things that can not, in the long run, make us happy. The orgasm ends, the car breaks down, the money gets spent.

Sin is the choosing of those things that will not make us happy in the long run. We are not punished for sin. Sin brings the punishment by its very nature -- it makes us grief-stricken and unhappy.

God, in his mercy, has made us in his image. he has also given us the ability to obtain our true happiness by using those tools correctly.

The paradox, at least to modern eyes, is that true freedom is freedom from sin, not freedom to sin.

[brightfame]

"You can "worship God" or not, but without faith in Christ you can't be saved; or you can "worship God" or not, but if you have faith in Christ you are saved whether you worship or not (even though, as I already mentioned, I personally think that faith in Christ is a form of implied worship, for all it's worth).

Is that better?"

'Fraid not, whether worship is an act, or simply acknowledging God for who she is, or implied as part of faith in Christ, Wyoecho's question still stands.

My last attempt, then I give up...

One more time:
It doesn't matter that "...whether worship is an act, or simply acknowledging God for who she is, or implied as part of faith in Christ..."; you are not (and you cannot be) saved by worship. So the original question from Wyoecho "...command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness..." is flawed, because He DIDN'T "...command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness...". What He DID do, is sent His only begotten Son to pay for our sins so that "...whoever BELIEVES in him would not perish but have everlasting life...". In other words: the ransom for our sins is paid by Him; it is a free gift for us; the condition is faith. No excuses, anyone can do it. Even if you haven't got faith; all you need to do is ask Him for saving faith, because regarding salvation He says "...whoever comes to me I shall not cast away...". So really, even a totally faithless person has no excuse. The only person who can go to the place of "...everlasting fire..." is the person who is extremely committed to going there. Now, are you going to fault God for respecting your choice, when you are so adamant and persevering in it against all advice and opportunities? Surely not; He's got to give you some leeway to say NO, if you really, really insist.

I hope you get it...

brightfame


but if you have faith in Christ you are saved whether you worship or not (even though, as I already mentioned, I personally think that faith in Christ is a form of implied worship, for all it's worth).

Is that better?

brightfame

"Not everyone who cries 'Lord' will be saved" and "Faith without acting is dead" That means you still have to try and love other people as you love your self. The way we live our lives will show whether we really have faith or not.

Sorry, I don't have the Bible in English translation.

I totally agree that faith without works is dead. The point is however, good works cannot produce saving faith. Real faith will produce works, but not the other way around. In other words: your success in "...trying to love one another..." or "...worshiping God..." (like someone else said), and other attempts at being good ARE works. If they are the result of faith, then good, if not, then they are useless for salvation. It is the faith that will save you, and any works stemming from this faith are an extra; but they can't save you. That is why it says "...you are saved by grace, through faith, not by works that anyone should boast...". Therefore, if you can boast (i.e. brag about it), it can't save you. So if I can brag about my efforts at loving someone - it can't save me; my efforts at worhsiping God - it can't save me; whatever I can brag about doing that makes me look spititual - none of that can save me. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save me; and yes, faith without works is dead - if it's real faith, it will produce works, I agree.

brightfame

Ignore this...

It's in the wrong place, so I edited it out...


"What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice?"

Technically, God never called it "free choice," but the kind of god that would do that is the same kind of god that gives eternal salvation to anyone who loves him, the same kind of god that loves his creation so much that he sacrificed his son to give them a chance to have eternal life, the same kind of god that created everything that exists, the kind of god that has the power to do anything he wants, but the patience to let people live their lives the way they want.

"Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control?"

Sure, sometimes emotions hurt, but I don't believe that they can completely control a person's actions unless the person allows his or her emotions that kind of power. While you can't always control how you feel, you can always control what you do.

"How many suicides are a result of failed relationships?"

I have no idea.

"How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?"

I have no idea, but I am willing to bet that the acts of violence were not mandatory for the person with the rage. The person had the rage, then volunteered to be violent. That's not a fault of God for giving them emotions, that's a fault of the person for not being able to control his actions.


Strongly agree...

[blazeofglory]

God made a choice so that to believe or not to believe also our choice.
To sin and not to sin is also our choice. To kill or save is also our choice.

Indeed God committed a blunder giving us a choice. If God has not made a choice there would not be sins and vices.

So I do not believe in free will.

Free will is a wrong notion.

Either there is determinism or things happen as if they were preset

Or things happen as they have to happen without any predeterminism.

[Whifflingpin]

"Only faith in Jesus Christ can save me;"

Even worse, sorry.

You could say salvation is being in the presence of God, and damnation is being in his absence.

Then maybe it is reasonable that salvation is only possible to those who worship God, that is, in its literal sense, acknowledge the worthiness of God. (Although what that really means, I have no idea.)

To say that anyone would be damned if they did not have a particular belief about a (probably) historical human being, well, that is to make a nonsense of choice.

Actually, a better answer for Wyecho is simply to say that it is perfectly possible to believe in God without having a corresponding belief in "eternal darkness," "everlasting fire" or "the absence of God."

Now and for ever, we are in the presence of God - what we choose is how we respond to that presence.

[hellsapoppin]

``Either there is determinism or things happen as if they were preset ``


According to the Judeo-Christian Bible, god determined who would be saved even before he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, there is no free will.

Anyone who believes the Bible, and who fails to understand this, has simply suspended his/her sense of logic.

[mazHur]

'free will' as I understand is like an employee of a company given a certain assignment to perform. The employee is thus free to use his acumen in applying his skill and expertise in carrying out the task.The employer does not 'sit over his head' to overseer how he's doing it. In this way, the employee has a ''free will''to do what he is ordained to do. Similarly, God has ordained us to live on earth and given us a ''road map''. Now it's upto us how efficiently we carry out our ''assignment'' using our sense and sensibilities. God, like the employer , is mainly converned by the outcome of your efforts.If you do your job badly 9using your free will you are putting your company to loss and would be sacked. In case of divinity, you will also be accountable how you performed in this world. However, unlike the employer who may act immediately, the ''mill of God grinds slowly but surely'' and God rewards or retributes you for you using your free will wrongly in this world as well as in the hereafter. If there was no divine accountability the whole universe would go hay wire and there would be no need to do good.

[hellsapoppin]

That is what the churches teach but this is not what the Judeo-Christian Bible teaches.

[mazHur]

are we discussing Bible only??

[APEist]

Aren't we all the vicious little experts, eh?

I claim myself to be no formal studier of either the Bible or Nietzsche or anyone else specifically oriented towards religious or anti-religious topics. I have read much of the Bible, being a former Baptist (gasp!), and I have read Beyond Good & Evil, and a book or two concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nevertheless, I am far from being any sort of expert (self-proclaimed or otherwise) on the topic.

But I do know some things.

I do know that it is silly to even attempt to understand the workings of a Being (if such a Being exists) so inconceivably more complicated and advanced then us. Nevertheless, I will admit my silliness.

I also know that there are severe illogicalities with every Christianity-championing reply in this thread. You realize that most of you all are stating that God devised and gifted us with free will so that we had to make the choice of whether or not to love him, and in the same post stating that our destinies are preconceived. What kind of arbitrary sense does that make? If our destinies are preconceived, then what is the point? Does God simply wish to watch it all play out, while already knowing the final outcome of each and every individual's lives? Can't you see how this directly contradicts the entire idea of free will, which you all have said was gifted to us by God?

As for the topic of God giving us free will to bestow meaning upon our love for him, I guess my question is 'Why?' Not why did he give our love meaning, I can see that reasoning perfectly, but why did he need to create beings to love him? Was he lonely?

Anyways, back to the notion of preconceived destinies.

I know that people will believe in what makes them comfortable, whatever reinforces their faith. We all have some kind of faith, whether it be that salvation is earned through Jesus, or faith in the belief that no God exists, etc.

I know that we are influenced by our environment and any circumstances that might be effecting it. Our communities traditions, our communities grievances, our communities irrationalities and subjects of fondness. The experiences we are subjected to, especially as children. All these things help create who we are, by inducing thoughts that add or subtract from our values and qualities.

All these things shape us, but they do not bend us.



To believe in preconceived destinies is to acquiesce that all of history's villains are in fact innocent. They had no choice, according to your beliefs, after all. So is that what you believe? That Hitler was innocent? Many children come up under similar circumstances and don't choose evil, yet some do. Thus it can't merely be that they are powerless products of their environment.

In summation: I believe choice exists. I don't believe all villains to be innocent productions. I believe everyone in the world is entitled to their own beliefs, but I also urge they should at least take notice of some of the caustic illogicalities that exist in their theologies.

[dark_182_88]

I don't think the focus is in the right place. Choice and free will is needed in order to have balance, as everything needs balance in the world. In order to have good and bad, you have to have choice and free will. It is only natural that people sin; and sometimes killings and murders, just like natural disasters, are bound to happen as part of a natural course of humanity. Imagine a world where people wouldn't die and more people populate the earth; or imagine a world where there were no criminals, drug dealers, etc.

Such a place is a utopic and cannot exist, because of the lack of balance. We all dream and vie to attain a perfect world or environment, but that is not possible.

A "God" would have to be both good and bad as well, as if he was only good then there would be a lack of balance, and an equal force of such power as evil cannot exist if a 'good God' is perfect as he would be able to eliminate it.

So the interpretation of God as good and all the descriptions of this "God" in religious texts is flawed, whether there is a higher force out there or not.

[Pendragon]

What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice? Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control? How many suicides are a result of failed relationships? How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?
God may give mankind the illusion of choice but in reality we are a product of our thoughts and emotions. No more no less.
If you think suicide is not a choice that can be walked away from, allow me to tell you about me:

At 17, sick of religion because I kept asking questions they refused to answer, went around, or misquoted the Bible on, with a broken long-term relationship, and an abusive, religious-fanatic mother, I tried to kill myself. Where I was, bloodhounds wouldn't have found the body. I cried for I don't know how long but I couldn't use that knife. Lest you think me a coward, I wasn't messed with unless they had a three to one advantage.

Two years later, I was at it again. I had tried every thing I could think of. I knew every religion on earth. This time I bear the scar on one wrist. I missed the artery by a fraction, but I'm a free bleeder. But I passed out and came to hours later, having thrown the knife into a tree. I had to bandage carefully, but I survive.

I wanted just to sleep. I took 7 Valiums. I had a friend do that and end up in a hospital for a week. It never knocked me off my feet. You don't leave here until He calls time, my friend.

When He calls time, nothing gonna keep you here.

Pendragon

[mazHur]

, but I survive.

I wanted just to sleep. I took 7 Valiums. I had a friend do that and end up in a hospital for a week. It never knocked me off my feet. You don't leave here until He calls time, my friend.

When He calls time, nothing gonna keep you here.

Pendragon

No, man, no. True there is time for everything but this doesn't mean God has given you a blanket to kill yourself. That's cowardice, man. In my religion, we hold ourselves in trust for God and shouldn't try to harm or destroy ourselves....the one who does is a big sinner. Therefore, I believe man should be grateful to God in all circumstances and try to face every situation with courage and patience. This is one of the basic teachings of Islam,,,,,,,,,

[PrinceMyshkin]

What kind of god would create a species and command that they worship only him or face eternal darkness, and call that free choice? Then this same god tortures his creations by giving them thoughts and emotions that they cannot always control? How many suicides are a result of failed relationships? How many acts of violence are a result of uncontrolled rage?
God may give mankind the illusion of choice but in reality we are a product of our thoughts and emotions. No more no less.

If I might turn your question around: What kind of species would create the sort of God you describe above? A species that is desperately afraid of its own dark impulses and equally afraid of those who might worship other gods.

[hellsapoppin]

are we discussing Bible only??

It appears so. At least I have not seen mention of ''Allah'', ''Zeus'', ''Ptah'', or any other divinity. Christian refer to their divinity as ''God'' but others do not. Therefore, I assume this is the intent of the posters here. But please correct me of I am wrong.

[mazHur]

It appears so. At least I have not seen mention of ''Allah'', ''Zeus'', ''Ptah'', or any other divinity. Christian refer to their divinity as ''God'' but others do not. Therefore, I assume this is the intent of the posters here. But please correct me of I am wrong.


What else would you call Allah in English?? Muslims call God when they intend to address Allah. they also call him Khuda (persian). Moreover God or Allah has 99 names in Quran !

As for Christian God, I think that means Trinity. Muslims don't accept that,

[Adolescent09]

The questions being dealt with here are excellent. It seems that some of the difficulties are ones of definitions. Maybe we need to use our terms more clearly.

Obedience, for one, is an important idea. Obedience can be of at least two types -- slavish and loving. Slavish obedience is the obedience that is offered because the other party has power over you. the second type of obedience is that of love. I hope most of us have experienced that kind of loving obedience, which involves putting our interests second to that of the one we love: parents, lovers, friends. An approach to faith that involves worrying that if you break a rule you go to Hell is clearly based on the first definition. I believe this is the implication of 2 Corinthians 3:6, that those who look to score points have missed the point.

Secondly, we need to consider what exactly we mean by free will. Many people would argue that free will is the ability to decide what we desire. I do not think one would include obtaining it as part of free will. After all, my wanting a Porsche or whatever is my act of will, and it is no less my will if I can not afford it.

Now, if one believes that what people desire most is to be happy, one would at least consider it likely that a person wills for that which he believes will give him that happiness.

The problem for us comes in choosing things that can not, in the long run, make us happy. The orgasm ends, the car breaks down, the money gets spent.

Sin is the choosing of those things that will not make us happy in the long run. We are not punished for sin. Sin brings the punishment by its very nature -- it makes us grief-stricken and unhappy.

God, in his mercy, has made us in his image. he has also given us the ability to obtain our true happiness by using those tools correctly.

The paradox, at least to modern eyes, is that true freedom is freedom from sin, not freedom to sin.

You sound like the black pastor from my neighborhood church who proselytizes true freedom and the celestial core of happiness. Happiness is deceptive and purely undefined. The only known contrast to happiness is sadness and since life experiences lead us to either emotion, neither one is decided by man. Innately and emotionally we are a living paradox : good and evil, happiness and sadness, pensiveness and nonchalance. To me, choice is a gamble between options but experience ultimately decides fate.

[brightfame]

"Only faith in Jesus Christ can save me;"

Even worse, sorry.

You could say salvation is being in the presence of God, and damnation is being in his absence.

Then maybe it is reasonable that salvation is only possible to those who worship God, that is, in its literal sense, acknowledge the worthiness of God. (Although what that really means, I have no idea.)

To say that anyone would be damned if they did not have a particular belief about a (probably) historical human being, well, that is to make a nonsense of choice.

Actually, a better answer for Wyecho is simply to say that it is perfectly possible to believe in God without having a corresponding belief in "eternal darkness," "everlasting fire" or "the absence of God."

Now and for ever, we are in the presence of God - what we choose is how we respond to that presence.

"...You could say salvation is being in the presence of God, and damnation is being in his absence..."

You could...but that's not quite what the Bible says, so you would be making it up as you go along. A lot of people do that. There is a name for that; its called believing in your own imagination.


[Whifflingpin quote]
"...Then maybe it is reasonable that salvation is only possible to those who worship God, that is, in its literal sense, acknowledge the worthiness of God. (Although what that really means, I have no idea.)..."

Yeah, maybe...
Again, if you make up your own religion, then maybe. Only one problem, your own religion, created by your imagination, can't save you.


[Whifflingpin quote]
"...To say that anyone would be damned if they did not have a particular belief about a (probably) historical human being, well, that is to make a nonsense of choice..."

Ok, lets see what the Bible actually says about needing or not-needing a "particular belief".
Jesus speaking as recorded in the book of Acts:
"...to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me..." (Acts: 26:18)

Yep, that clearly says "...sanctified by faith in Me...".


In addition, in the book of Romans it says:
"...For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes...in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith'..." (Rom: 1:16-17)

Again, faith in Christ - definitely required.


Romans again:
"...But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnesses by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe..." (Rom: 3:22)

Here, the act of faith in Jesus, is revealed to attribute to the believer undeserved, unearned, unmerited righteousness.
Again, faith in Jesus - not optional.


And again, Romans:
"...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law..." (Rom: 3:28).

What this means is: without faith in Jesus, you have to EARN your way to heaven.


Again, the same book:
"...But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,..." (Rom: 4:5)

Faith in Jesus - necessary requirement for righteousness (i.e. not faith in Jesus - no righteousness).


And again:
"...Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace,..." (Rom: 4:16)

What this means is that God made salvation to be by faith in Jesus, "...that it might be according to grace...".
There are two obvious consequences of this decision (in my opinion):

1) Everybody can get saved; no matter how intelligent you are or not, how wealthy or not, how educated, important, powerful, significant, insiginificant, worthy or unworthy, etc; all you have to do is believe in Jesus.

2) Nobody can take the credit for their salvation, as it is an act of grace (i.e. grace = unmerited favour).

Moving right along...


[Whifflingpin quote]
"...Actually, a better answer for Wyecho is simply to say that it is perfectly possible to believe in God without having a corresponding belief in "eternal darkness," "everlasting fire" or "the absence of God..."

If you want to believe in your own imagination, then that is a wonderful answer. However, the Bible confronts people who prefer their own imagination to sound doctrine as communicated through scripture. In the book of II Timothy it says the following:

"...For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables..." (II Tim: 4: 3-4)

So really, the decision you (...and we ALL) have to make is this:
Do you want to believe in your own imagination for peace and salvation, or
do you want to believe in Jesus for peace and salvation.

Only one of these can actually deliver on it's promise.


brightfame

[drmongo]

Happy New Year to all of you.
First, we must understand that we can not understand God's plans, His/Her reasons for doing whatever is of the Master Plan. Second, we must realize that God is not of this plane in which was created for mere mortals to exercise laws of a total different dimensionality, to seek and ponder the meaning of creation.:flare:

drmongo

[RichardHresko]

You sound like the black pastor from my neighborhood church who proselytizes true freedom and the celestial core of happiness. Happiness is deceptive and purely undefined. The only known contrast to happiness is sadness and since life experiences lead us to either emotion, neither one is decided by man. Innately and emotionally we are a living paradox : good and evil, happiness and sadness, pensiveness and nonchalance. To me, choice is a gamble between options but experience ultimately decides fate.

The ideas I expressed are hardly new ones, nor was there any claim to originality, since originality is undesirable when trying to formulate a definition for a pre-existing concept.

Many philosophical systems, including Aristotle's and John Stuart Mill's, are eudaimonic in nature, meaning merely that humans seek happiness for its own sake. (Freud is, perhaps, semi-eudaimonic since he has a set of drives, and pleasure is not necessarily the same as happiness.)

In the sentence, "Innately and emotionally we are a living paradox : good and evil, happiness and sadness, pensiveness and nonchalance" there is an assumption and also something not very clear. The assumption is tied to using the term "innately." On what basis are we to say that we are born both good and evil? That is neither obvious nor spelled out.

What is not clear is where the paradox lies. It is not a paradox for something to have one trait at one time or in one respect, and to have another contradictory trait at a different time or in a different respect. Thus there is no paradox in the same person being young at one time and old at some later time, or being happy on winning the lottery while feeling miserable due to a toothache at the same time. A paradox needs to have something that is true and seems contradictory.

[RichardHresko]

It appears so. At least I have not seen mention of ''Allah'', ''Zeus'', ''Ptah'', or any other divinity. Christian refer to their divinity as ''God'' but others do not. Therefore, I assume this is the intent of the posters here. But please correct me of I am wrong.

"God" is a title, not a name, and therefore is not restricted to any particular religion. Also, a follower of Islam would be able to point out that even if this discussion were solely about the Bible it would be about Allah, since Allah is the God who appears in the Bible.

[Whifflingpin]

brightfame: "Again, the same book:
"...But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,..." (Rom: 4:5)

Faith in Jesus - necessary requirement for righteousness (i.e. not faith in Jesus - no righteousness)."

The passage is not about faith in Jesus, it is distinguishing between faith in God, and following a set of rules. Paul is describing how Abraham was justified by his faith, but Abraham knew nothing of Jesus.


brightfame: "So really, the decision you (...and we ALL) have to make is this:
Do you want to believe in your own imagination for peace and salvation, or
do you want to believe in Jesus for peace and salvation."

I think this is the message of Romans 4. God deals directly with individuals, not through rules or books, and it is our individual response to him that counts - not the rules we follow or the books we quote.

Whatever we choose, it is our own imagination (or conscience, as I would prefer to call it) that determines the choice, so your second option is, in fact only a subsidiary of the first, not an alternative.

[hellsapoppin]

"God" is a title, not a name, and therefore is not restricted to any particular religion. Also, a follower of Islam would be able to point out that even if this discussion were solely about the Bible it would be about Allah, since Allah is the God who appears in the Bible.



What do these other religions say about choice/freewill/fate/determinism??


I can pose a question such as what choice does an abortion victim have to a Christian/Jew. But I would not know how to phrase it to a pagan or other form of religious practitioner.

[mazHur]

There are either 'revealed' religions or other religions, nothing to be called ''pagn or other form of religious practitioners''. Calling them s such may be called bigotry.

Every religion, atleast Islam, says men have free will,,,,,there is only ONE God (call it Allah or Khuda as it is generally called by Muslims in this region) and nobody is his like.

Zoroastrians divide God in two--Eharman and Ishwar, the gods of good and evil

Hindu god is Bhagwaan,,,,,and according to them he manifests itself in everyting and every form ( sort of animalistic view )

[hellsapoppin]

You have a point that the term ''pagan'' may be troubling to some.

Still, how would these people answer my query re the allegation that everyone has free will and how this applies to abortion victims?

[mazHur]

In case of abortion there is a sort of ''will'' inside a ''will',,,,,,unless the ''inner will'' in the womb is able to give its consent mothers cannot be assumed to predominate that ''little will'' with their own.....that would amount to extermination of a brewing life!

[hellsapoppin]

If I am reading you correctly, they would say there is no such thing as free will.

As I think about it, while I have read many myths and legends about life and religion overseas, I do not recall ever reading where any other culture insists that there is anything such thing as free will.

[mazHur]

no, you are mistaken. As far as Islam is 100 % for free will.

According to Tertullian,it is not difficult for Satan to seal the eyes of the body, once he has sealed the eyes of his soul''. When this condition appears the strife between God and Man begins not so much on account of ignorance but unbelief.
Consequently, the existence of 'will' or the ''right to choose'' becomes the asset of man.

[RichardHresko]

What do these other religions say about choice/freewill/fate/determinism??


I can pose a question such as what choice does an abortion victim have to a Christian/Jew. But I would not know how to phrase it to a pagan or other form of religious practitioner.

In Graeco-Roman belief there was free will but there was also fatum or "fate." The dividing line is very unclear, as a reading of the Aeneid or the Iliad or the Odyssey would reveal.

[Pendragon]

No, man, no. True there is time for everything but this doesn't mean God has given you a blanket to kill yourself. That's cowardice, man. In my religion, we hold ourselves in trust for God and shouldn't try to harm or destroy ourselves....the one who does is a big sinner. Therefore, I believe man should be grateful to God in all circumstances and try to face every situation with courage and patience. This is one of the basic teachings of Islam,,,,,,,,,You may have noticed that I thank God for keeping me from suicide? It was a lesson, Maz, a parable to teach others not to walk that path.

But I also believe in destiny. You will preform what God intends and cannot die until you have either finished your work or so totally rejected it that you cannot find repentance (See Esau in the Bible. He had the right of birth, the inheritance of the Firstborn, but it meant nothing to him when he was hungry. He was a hunter, why not tell Jacob to eat his own soup, mama's boy, he'd soon have something to eat. No, he sold his right as if it were nothing, and could not regain it, though he sought it with tears.)

[brightfame]

brightfame: "Again, the same book:
"...But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,..." (Rom: 4:5)

Faith in Jesus - necessary requirement for righteousness (i.e. not faith in Jesus - no righteousness)."

The passage is not about faith in Jesus, it is distinguishing between faith in God, and following a set of rules. Paul is describing how Abraham was justified by his faith, but Abraham knew nothing of Jesus.


brightfame: "So really, the decision you (...and we ALL) have to make is this:
Do you want to believe in your own imagination for peace and salvation, or
do you want to believe in Jesus for peace and salvation."

I think this is the message of Romans 4. God deals directly with individuals, not through rules or books, and it is our individual response to him that counts - not the rules we follow or the books we quote.

Whatever we choose, it is our own imagination (or conscience, as I would prefer to call it) that determines the choice, so your second option is, in fact only a subsidiary of the first, not an alternative.

(Whifflingpin wrote):
"...The passage is not about faith in Jesus, it is distinguishing between faith in God, and following a set of rules. Paul is describing how Abraham was justified by his faith, but Abraham knew nothing of Jesus..."

If you take the passage in Romans 4 out of context, then you can make it sound as if the above statement is true. However, if you read the whole passage, then you will see that it is clearly incorrect.

For example, in Rom 4:23, it clearly explains that the passage wasn't just about "...how Abraham was justified by his faith..." because if you keep reading, it states the following:

"Now it was not written for his (Abraham's) sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand,..." (Romans 4: 23-, 5:1-2)

So again:
"...our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand..."

In other words, having no faith in Jesus means that no ransom "...because our offenses..." has been paid; and nothing has been done to give us "...our justification...". Without faith in Jesus, and the justification and forgiveness that this faith brings, the Bible makes it clear that we only have the righteousness of our own good works (...or imaginations) to justify us, and the Bible makes it also clear that this is not enough to save anyone.

If you read the whole passage (...not just out of context extracts and subheadings), then you will clearly see that the author of Romans is telling the readers that Abraham was the father of the faith that we (...the believers) have in Jesus Christ. Therefore, to say "...it is our individual response to him that counts - not the rules we follow or the books we quote..." is totally incorrect; unless of course "...our individual response..." is according to his revealed will in the Bible. This is because it is very possible for a person to imagine any kind of morality that they want, and do whatever they want, and still convince themself that their "...response to him..." is acceptable. However, the only way that a person can know for certain that their response is correct, is to check with the instructions that God has left, and these are written in the Bible. Then, when you have checked with the instructions (...in context, not out of context), you can tell whether your imagination is taking you to a dead end, or whether you are safe to proceed.

Therefore, it definitely matters what "...rules we follow or the books we quote...", as you can live by your own rules, and be totally convinced that you are all right, and completely miss the warning given in a scripture from the book of Proverbs that I have quoted before; it goes something like this:

"...There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death...".

In another words, it is possible for a human being to feel that they are on the right path (by solely relying on their intellect, imagination and senses), without ever realising that they are not. The only way we can know for certain that our imaginations have not led us astray is to check with the instructions, and these are in the Bible.

So again, it is extremely important to make sure that the "...rules we follow or the books we quote..." are correct, as some "...rules we follow or the books we quote..." will lead us to salvation, and some will lead us to a lost eternity.

I hope this helps

bright

[Remarkable]

I believe that the correct question is if there really is a God that created choice...

[Redzeppelin]

I believe that the correct question is if there really is a God that created choice...


No, that would be incorrect because the original question assumes as a "given" that God exists. Please don't try to morph the question to fit your particular slant.

God gave humanity choice because choice is the foundation of love - without choice, love cannot exist. Period. Of all the things you can force humanity to do (just read accounts of the atrocities in concentration camps) the one thing that you cannot force a human being to do is love.

Without choice, there is no love - and without love, there is nothing.

[hellsapoppin]

The problem here is that the thread topic is posed as a leading question: it assumes a god exists. The better approach would be a disinterested query which asks, assuming a god exists ... with the issue of free will as opposed to determinism.

[dzebra]

It is just as logically valid to assume God exists as it is to assume God does not exist, so I don't think that your proposition is a "better" approach.

But I agree with Red, that choice is required for love, and interestingly enough, love is God's greatest commandment.

[hellsapoppin]

According to that same Bible, believers are empowered to heal the sick, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and alter the weather. Presumably, 'free will'' exists in that book because any problem can be readily remedied by the these actions.

I'll gladly go to any church that duplicates all those reported miracles. :)

[Redzeppelin]

The problem here is that the thread topic is posed as a leading question: it assumes a god exists. The better approach would be a disinterested query which asks, assuming a god exists ... with the issue of free will as opposed to determinism.

This is a religious text forum - and it is conceivable that people who believe in God might post questions. When they do, they're allowed to pose the question with the assumption that God exists. They are not required to play the "disinterested query" bit. In the same vein, atheists aren't required to pose questions as if God is a given. Seems fair to me.

[hellsapoppin]

Technically, you are partly correct. I do not see, however, where forum rules require religious adherence in order to participate. Moreover, some of the world's best biblical experts have been non-practitioners. The problem here is that we have seen several instances of people responding in a hostile fashion if one does not accept certain religious tenets. In fact, a couple of threads have been closed down because of hostilities uttered by certain religionists.

By contrast, rationalists on this forum have responded to queries and issues in a calm, persuasive, and detached manner.

Therefore, as you say, one may have assumptions. Unfortunately, it leads to emotional outbursts rather than rational discourse. I'm sure that you would agree that rational discourse is a far better medium of exchange and makes for a better forum.

[Poetess]

In Islam, being in life is to know there`s a Mighty Soul which is Allah. It is full of choices to correct your mistakes that you`ve done in a different world, and so to know why you go to Heaven or to Hell. In The Judgement Day -about the Free Will-, we will be asked about what we did, and our answer will be "Why didn`t you give me a choice of either coming to this life or not?"
Allah will then tell us that we were asked about it, and we chose the body we wanted to come through to this life, we chose our family and our friends; thus, we had the free will to come.
The "deja vu" which we think is an illusion of having experienced something before, is true. It is NOT an illusion, it is something we really experienced and is happening exactly like it was. So the choice here, is to correct something wrong we are doing to ourselves or anyone/anything else.
So briefly, being in life is a choice we agreed upon to correct something we`ve done. Too bad, not alot of Muslims know this.

[mazHur]

sorry, i could not follow your interpretation of this sort of Avagon philosophy in which Muslims dont believe,,,,,,

[Poetess]

you mean the Avagon philosophy as in the Karma -"the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation" -that Muslims don`t believe in?

[blazeofglory]

If it was God's intention to create us to be eternally pure and obedient, why did he give us the choice to refute his laws, moreover His very existence? God must have preconceived that the benefit of choice to mankind superceded the setbacks. But where man is given a choice, God must have known that commandments are futile in sustaining obedience. One doesn't need omniscience to know that. Unless you're a monk or high member of the laity, chances are you've broken God's law at least once in your lifetime. Why then would he create a world of choice and leave destiny in the hands of a volatile race, when a world of systematic followers guided by an absolute fate and destiny would have been far simpler to preside over?

I am always skeptical about God and the choice he has given to us respecting many issues in life. God has given a choice to be good or bad, and we do it as per God's design. And indeed from that perspective we do not account for all that happens, for it is indeed God who account for every act of Him.

Therefore, why man must be penalizeed since he is not accountable for everyrthing he does. He is a tool or a machnery, the doer is somewhere else. He dances to the tune of someone / some force else.

[mazHur]

Hi Blaze

it occurs to me that though God has given us choice He has also given us intellect and His Commands tell us to opt for good only. Therefore, if we go for evil we would be held responsible for that.

[hellsapoppin]

``why man must be penalizeed since he is not accountable``


Because of this god's duality = an evil god punishes victims for his evils.

[RaymondMongrain]

In spite of all that has transpired since Adam's disobedience mankind has been given more than enough evidence that our Creator is worthy of our trust and love. Free choice properly acted out in response to a God who loves us will give one an experiential relationship that can never be experienced otherwise. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Raymond Mongrain I've tasted and know it to be true. He is the Way the Truth and The Life

[ashley3554]

If it was God's intention to create us to be eternally pure and obedient, why did he give us the choice to refute his laws, moreover His very existence? God must have preconceived that the benefit of choice to mankind superceded the setbacks. But where man is given a choice, God must have known that commandments are futile in sustaining obedience. One doesn't need omniscience to know that. Unless you're a monk or high member of the laity, chances are you've broken God's law at least once in your lifetime. Why then would he create a world of choice and leave destiny in the hands of a volatile race, when a world of systematic followers guided by an absolute fate and destiny would have been far simpler to preside over?

we are eternally pure ... we are his favorites .. We are better and higher than angels ..

that is way he gave us a choice and the free well .. even though we can make a mistake we choose not to .. We choose to do the right thing even when it is hard..

We are better than angels because they are extremely pure .. we are sinful ... his intention is to worship him in a free well ..

When God first created Adam the angels asked why would he create humans that will inhabit earth.. Who will shred blood and kill each other and will corrupt earth ..God told them that he knows what they do not know..

Adam was created from clay made from sand of different colors) and was left to dray for days and days.. and when he was given a soul he immediately tried to move in a hurry but couldn't God said that this is how i have created man to be .. (Impatient)

God told angels to kneel to Adam but satan did not kneel.. so God fired him from heaven .. But did not kill him.. Satan pledged to God that he will prove to him that his humans are no good and he will be closer to them than their own veins.. and God told him to do his best and humans will have the choice to follow satan or be on God's side ..

[mazHur]

Humans are given the right to choose between good and bad -angel's arm't . This is how the world works !

[Lote-Tree]

Humans are given the right to choose between good and bad -angel's arm't .

So how did Satan manage to disobey God?

[susanprice]

God gave us FREE WILL. How we choose to live our lives is totally up to each individual.

[mazHur]

In that case we have to believe the Bible or the Quran,,,,both agree on this point that Satan disobeyed God. But why? this is indeed a perplexing question for me as well....let someone more learned in this subject shed more light on it.

Generally, it's said that the Satan disobeyed God after he was given leave to answer his question that he has made Man his Viceregent on Eath,,QED

[mazHur]

God gave us FREE WILL. How we choose to live our lives is totally up to each individual.

I agree ,,,,,,,,

[susanprice]

Tell me MazHur, why does anyone disobey God?

[Lote-Tree]

Generally, it's said that the Satan disobeyed God after he was given leave to answer his question that he has made Man his Viceregent on Eath,,QED

Thats what is free will is about isn't it - free to choose to disagree?

Hence God's treatment of Satan is unjust :D

[susanprice]

however, if you believe in God's Word as the "be all to end all," then how was His treatment unjust?

[Lote-Tree]

however, if you believe in God's Word as the "be all to end all," then how was His treatment unjust?

God gives satan a choice and he chooses it. And gets banished for it?

Thats Injustice.

[mazHur]

maybe but God is all in all ! Seems God was testing Satan by giving him the 'choice' and when Satan opted for refusal to kneel, God fired him !

and Susanprice, the answer to your question is Man is made up of both good and bad (as all things in this world are made) coupled with the choice to opt for good or bad. Generally, bad things/acts appeal more to the human nature --this is why they disobey God. For example , every person should earn honest living ,,,they do,,,yet there are many who look for short cuts and foul means.

[Lote-Tree]

maybe but God is all in all ! Seems God was testing Satan by giving him the 'choice' and when Satan opted for refusal to kneel, God fired him !


So basicly he had no choice ;-)

[susanprice]

If you CHOOSE to kill someone, covet they neighbor's wife, refuse to honor they father and mother, are you not punished for your choice?

[susanprice]

besides, I think you answered your own question

[susanprice]

It's a test . . .

[susanprice]

and Satan failed

[mazHur]

remember:: the mill of God grinds slowly but surely !

[susanprice]

Please forgive me everyone for making four responses in rapid succession. I'm very new and just learning the rules.

[mazHur]

He was given a choice but he (Satan) made a wrong decision so was condemned.

It's just like a student is given a choice in exam but he fails to tick the right answer acceptable to the examiner who ultimately fails him and even does reverse (minus) marking for erring in judgmnet

[Lote-Tree]

If you CHOOSE to kill someone, covet they neighbor's wife, refuse to honor they father and mother, are you not punished for your choice?


But Satan was not doing any of that. He just disagreed.


It's like God asking what do you think of this colour.

And you answered - it's terrible God.

And God says - I banish thee from my sight! ;-)

[susanprice]

Sorry Late-Tree, I'm not sure that's quite the same when you're asked your opinion. That implied that there's no right or wrong answer. However, do you think God "splits hairs" and decides which of His Laws can or can't be broken?

[Lote-Tree]

However, do you think God "splits hairs" and decides which of His Laws can or can't be broken?

His law was this: He gives Satan Free will to choose and he chooses something that God does not like. So he banishes him.

Satan was obeying the law of free will. God could not accept his decision.


So it's fault of God and not Satan.

[susanprice]

I think we should agree to disagree. I do believe WE are splitting hairs. Thanks for the debate though. You are a formidable opponent, Late-Tree.

[Lote-Tree]

I think we should agree to disagree. I do believe WE are splitting hairs.


You are only trying to Excuse your God for his injustice ;-)



Thanks for the debate though.


De nada ;-)



You are a formidable opponent, Late-Tree.


And it's Lote-Tree ;-) and not late-tree... ;-)

[susanprice]

mea culpa, Lote-Tree! I shan't make that mistake again.

[Lote-Tree]

mea culpa, Lote-Tree! I shan't make that mistake again.

And I shall forgive you not Banish you to Hell for all eternity ;-) :D

because I am a compassionate person ;-)

[mazHur]

God did not ask Satan's opinion , He just ordered him to kneel before Adam but Satan refused. God punished him for his disobedience. It's like a Commander orders his soldier to blow his bugle but he doesnt ,,,what do you think the commander would do with him??

[Redzeppelin]

But Satan was not doing any of that. He just disagreed.


It's like God asking what do you think of this colour.

And you answered - it's terrible God.

And God says - I banish thee from my sight! ;-)

No - all wrong. Satan challenged the soveriegnty of God; Satan, a created creature, desired to have equal status with God himself. That's why he got booted out of heaven - his immense pride in himself caused him to desire what was not his to have; as such, he sowed rebellion among the angels and tried to take heaven by force (see Milton's imagined reconstruction of this event).

Your description of God as a capricious tyrant is inaccurate, as is your attempt to paint Satan as a victim.

[Lote-Tree]

No - all wrong. Satan challenged the soveriegnty of God; Satan, a created creature, desired to have equal status with God himself. That's why he got booted out of heaven - his immense pride in himself caused him to desire what was not his to have; as such, he sowed rebellion among the angels and tried to take heaven by force (see Milton's imagined reconstruction of this event).

Your description of God as a capricious tyrant is inaccurate, as is your attempt to paint Satan as a victim.

Mazhur is talking about Islamic version of Satan.

In that version he is not Malovalent as in the Christian version but rather he refuse to bow down to Adam because he thought only God should be bowed down to...

[mazHur]

I didnt have the Islamic version when I wrote the previous lines.

Anyhow, according to Islamic version Iblees or Satan was the Commander in Chief of all the Angels ,,,,,he felt insulted when God told him to b ow to Adam stating that Adam was made of clay whereas he was made from the glow of fire ( he meant glow was superior to mud),,,,He bacame insolent to God therefore God condemned him for ever !

[ashley3554]

Mazhur is talking about Islamic version of Satan.

In that version he is not Malovalent as in the Christian version but rather he refuse to bow down to Adam because he thought only God should be bowed down to...


No this is wrong ... satan was not worried about how God deserves to be bowed at .. but he was arrogant and cocky and said that he will not bow to a human being .. he was angry because God made humans superior to all creatures and yet they are made of clay ..

people in this thread who say that satan was only practicing his free well .. will actually free well is for humans alone .. because we are God's favorite and we have inherited earth from him for us to live in ..

besides satan was only envious .. God has created Adam by giving him a piece from his soul and this clay is settle , calm ,and indicated growth while fire is destructive ..

satan used to inhabit earth along with other Jin and fire creatures .. they shattered blood and corrupted earth that is why God sent his angels to evacuate earth .. WHY ?? for humans to live in ..



Anyhow, according to Islamic version Iblees or Satan was the Commander in Chief of all the Angels ,,,,,he felt insulted when God told him to b ow to Adam stating that Adam was made of clay whereas he was made from the glow of fire ( he meant glow was superior to mud),,,,He bacame insolent to God therefore God condemned him for ever !

This is a true yet a shorter version ..

God did not kill satan because he apologizes to God afterwords.. but his apology made it worse .. because he asked God for an opportunity to prove to him that this human who he made better than other creatures is no good and that he will do his best to share their money and children and will be closer to them than their own veins to make them sin and sin all the time ..

God told him to do his best because he (satan)is not powerful over humans and will never control them ..

God have created a seed of faith inside every human .. before creating us he created our souls thousands of years before and gave us our basic instance that is why humans share the same basic instance .. then he introduced him self to our souls and planted a seed of faith in side each soul that will be shown in the time of crisis .. when we are in trouble we only remember God and pray for him ..

[Lote-Tree]

I didnt have the Islamic version when I wrote the previous lines.


Lets have all the versions then?

any more variations on this ;-)

[Lote-Tree]

God have created a seed of faith inside every human .. before creating us he created our souls thousands of years before and gave us our basic instance that is why humans share the same basic instance .. then he introduced him self to our souls and planted a seed of faith in side each soul that will be shown in the time of crisis .. when we are in trouble we only remember God and pray for him ..

If that is comprehensivle to you then you have a talent ;-)

shalom, salam and peace :D

[ashley3554]

If that is comprehensivle to you then you have a talent ;-)

shalom, salam and peace :D

no it is not comprehensive dear :yawnb:

[Negar]

Do you really believe in Choice? Do you really think there is one? Do we choose ? Do we have the right to choose our life? Personally I don't believe in this. Life is something obligatory, we are born,we live,we work,we die...no one asks us wethere we want it or no?!

[blazeofglory]

Hi Blaze

it occurs to me that though God has given us choice He has also given us intellect and His Commands tell us to opt for good only. Therefore, if we go for evil we would be held responsible for that.

Good or evil man does not account for the action at his disposal. At times he becomes hard pressed to do things he does not want to do in the ordinary course of life. For instance, he does not choose to steal if he gets enough foods to eat and something to wear.

Therefore there is no choice between good or bad. What we call bad maybe good to him and his family members.

This is totally a relative issue and has little to do with a particular set of theories.